We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

I do care about them. I wish us all a great day of world peace and laughter! Oh screw it. Open the borders, get rid of cops, and make drugs legal. We might be surprised. But then again, we might be surprised. But seriously, close the border. Or not. Yes. No. Maybe? Could build the Great Wall of America. But then are we racist for not doing the same to Canada? Naaaaaa. That's profiling not racism. But profiling can be good. Or is it? The U.S. could allow no one nonAmerican into the country and we only deal with ourselves. I'm fine with just closing off all ithers, but what do I know? I'm just an old fogie anymore...

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

Hmm, I thought conservatives liked when things were not restricted by government, including borders. Doesn't having closed borders undermine the conservative dream of free, unencumbered competition? (Actually, I also think competition is good.) Indeed, the very people that like closed borders also seem to like cheap labor.

Please, conservatives (I'm not necessarily referring to you here), be clear or consistent, preferably both.

At 8/26/2015 6:02:11 AM, Sooner wrote:I do care about them. I wish us all a great day of world peace and laughter! Oh screw it. Open the borders, get rid of cops, and make drugs legal. We might be surprised. But then again, we might be surprised. But seriously, close the border. Or not. Yes. No. Maybe? Could build the Great Wall of America. But then are we racist for not doing the same to Canada? Naaaaaa. That's profiling not racism. But profiling can be good. Or is it? The U.S. could allow no one nonAmerican into the country and we only deal with ourselves. I'm fine with just closing off all ithers, but what do I know? I'm just an old fogie anymore...

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

Hmm, I thought conservatives liked when things were not restricted by government, including borders. Doesn't having closed borders undermine the conservative dream of free, unencumbered competition? (Actually, I also think competition is good.) Indeed, the very people that like closed borders also seem to like cheap labor.

I'm for the free market within the context of nation states existing. Within the context of property rights. Open borders, in fact, constitute a huge violation of property rights. That is explained here, using a counterfactual:

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

Hmm, I thought conservatives liked when things were not restricted by government, including borders. Doesn't having closed borders undermine the conservative dream of free, unencumbered competition? (Actually, I also think competition is good.) Indeed, the very people that like closed borders also seem to like cheap labor.

I'm for the free market within the context of nation states existing. Within the context of property rights. Open borders, in fact, constitute a huge violation of property rights. That is explained here, using a counterfactual:

This article makes it clear that there is a distinction between free trade and free movement. Furthermore, it shows that free movement combined with tax-derived welfare for everyone ends in disaster. Yet, I find its argument against free movement weak. If I am interpreting what it says correctly, it says that open borders violate a country's rights because the receiving country is being "invaded" by foreigners. I'm not quite sure how foreigners legally buying/renting and living in property in a country constitutes an "invasion" that leads to "destruction of [a country's] civilization."

Also, you are just wrong about your last comment here. Even "right wing" billionaires lobby and support open borders.

The opponents of open borders tend to be more working class, on average.

That's a surprise. I guess I generalized a bit too much.

Please, conservatives (I'm not necessarily referring to you here), be clear or consistent, preferably both.

This article makes it clear that there is a distinction between free trade and free movement. Furthermore, it shows that free movement combined with tax-derived welfare for everyone ends in disaster. Yet, I find its argument against free movement weak. If I am interpreting what it says correctly, it says that open borders violate a country's rights because the receiving country is being "invaded" by foreigners. I'm not quite sure how foreigners legally buying/renting and living in property in a country constitutes an "invasion" that leads to "destruction of [a country's] civilization."

I like Hoppe and I think he's worth reading in general, but I've always had a little trouble with parts of this paper. Anyway, it's an invasion in HIS mind because they come uninvited. Contrast that with free trade where goods don't arrive here unless there is an explicit agreement between two parties. You can argue that they are sort of invited since someone has to rent them an apartment, give them a job, etc. That weakens Hoppe's argument. But you have to understand where Hoppe is coming from: ultimately he wants to abolish not only welfare but all public property.

The other problem with the paper is that it seems to assume that illegal immigrants receive all the government goodies that everyone else does. As far as I know, that isn't true. For example, they pay into social security and will likely never get anything out of it (of course, we may not get anything out of it either).

To me, the more important insight in that paper is how restriction of trade combined with the welfare state CREATES the issue of illegal immigration. The fact that Donald Trump is having success making this a major issue is BECAUSE of other government policies. Isn't that convenient. This is why politicians will have ZERO incentive to change this. It not only gives them work to do, but work that fits the narrative of the avg. Americans belief system. Perfect politics!

Given that governments (and most people for that matter) believe in restricting trade, tariffs, quotas, etc and also believe in welfare, then immigration is going to be an issue and I'm not sure there is a better way to deal with it than the way we are right now.

Until a large percentage of U.S. citizens understand this, this issue will continue on, status quo. After all, the economics of free trade and comparative advantage have been known since the 18th century. Why would it suddenly change now?

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

Hmm, I thought conservatives liked when things were not restricted by government, including borders. Doesn't having closed borders undermine the conservative dream of free, unencumbered competition? (Actually, I also think competition is good.) Indeed, the very people that like closed borders also seem to like cheap labor.

I'm for the free market within the context of nation states existing. Within the context of property rights. Open borders, in fact, constitute a huge violation of property rights. That is explained here, using a counterfactual:

This article makes it clear that there is a distinction between free trade and free movement. Furthermore, it shows that free movement combined with tax-derived welfare for everyone ends in disaster. Yet, I find its argument against free movement weak. If I am interpreting what it says correctly, it says that open borders violate a country's rights because the receiving country is being "invaded" by foreigners. I'm not quite sure how foreigners legally buying/renting and living in property in a country constitutes an "invasion" that leads to "destruction of [a country's] civilization."

Because, of course, it isn't legal anything in the case of illegal immigration.

That aside, neighborhoods have a right to restrict who buys homes there. Homeowners have the right to restrict who lives there.

If you believe at, all, in any concept of a nation state, a nation's right to restrict immigration is clear.

Also, you are just wrong about your last comment here. Even "right wing" billionaires lobby and support open borders.

The opponents of open borders tend to be more working class, on average.

That's a surprise. I guess I generalized a bit too much.

Please, conservatives (I'm not necessarily referring to you here), be clear or consistent, preferably both.

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

LOL, love your sarcasm and spot on PIECE of the downfalls Americans feel from this recent Amnesty push from the President and Congress as a whole.

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

LOL, love your sarcasm and spot on PIECE of the downfalls Americans feel from this recent Amnesty push from the President and Congress as a whole.

This article makes it clear that there is a distinction between free trade and free movement. Furthermore, it shows that free movement combined with tax-derived welfare for everyone ends in disaster. Yet, I find its argument against free movement weak. If I am interpreting what it says correctly, it says that open borders violate a country's rights because the receiving country is being "invaded" by foreigners. I'm not quite sure how foreigners legally buying/renting and living in property in a country constitutes an "invasion" that leads to "destruction of [a country's] civilization."

I like Hoppe and I think he's worth reading in general, but I've always had a little trouble with parts of this paper. Anyway, it's an invasion in HIS mind because they come uninvited. Contrast that with free trade where goods don't arrive here unless there is an explicit agreement between two parties. You can argue that they are sort of invited since someone has to rent them an apartment, give them a job, etc. That weakens Hoppe's argument. But you have to understand where Hoppe is coming from: ultimately he wants to abolish not only welfare but all public property.

I think I see where he is coming from now- he argues that foreigners using a country's property violates the country's rights because there was no mutual agreement- but I still have a problem with his reasoning.

The other problem with the paper is that it seems to assume that illegal immigrants receive all the government goodies that everyone else does. As far as I know, that isn't true. For example, they pay into social security and will likely never get anything out of it (of course, we may not get anything out of it either).

I think I understand his point of view here- not that I agree. Not all gov't benefits can be restricted to citizens. For instance, it is hard to restrict use of roads/bridges/public parks.

To me, the more important insight in that paper is how restriction of trade combined with the welfare state CREATES the issue of illegal immigration. The fact that Donald Trump is having success making this a major issue is BECAUSE of other government policies. Isn't that convenient. This is why politicians will have ZERO incentive to change this. It not only gives them work to do, but work that fits the narrative of the avg. Americans belief system. Perfect politics!

Yeah, I agree that ideally the issue of illegal immigration wouldn't exist. Unfortunately that's not how politics plays out.

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!?

Hmm, I thought conservatives liked when things were not restricted by government, including borders. Doesn't having closed borders undermine the conservative dream of free, unencumbered competition? (Actually, I also think competition is good.) Indeed, the very people that like closed borders also seem to like cheap labor.

I'm for the free market within the context of nation states existing. Within the context of property rights. Open borders, in fact, constitute a huge violation of property rights. That is explained here, using a counterfactual:

This article makes it clear that there is a distinction between free trade and free movement. Furthermore, it shows that free movement combined with tax-derived welfare for everyone ends in disaster. Yet, I find its argument against free movement weak. If I am interpreting what it says correctly, it says that open borders violate a country's rights because the receiving country is being "invaded" by foreigners. I'm not quite sure how foreigners legally buying/renting and living in property in a country constitutes an "invasion" that leads to "destruction of [a country's] civilization."

Because, of course, it isn't legal anything in the case of illegal immigration.

That aside, neighborhoods have a right to restrict who buys homes there. Homeowners have the right to restrict who lives there.

If you believe at, all, in any concept of a nation state, a nation's right to restrict immigration is clear.

Nations can restrict immigration; it doesn't necessarily violate international law. The question is why they should. It seems to me that if there was no economic issue with having open borders, then there is no real reason to close borders.

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

At 8/26/2015 4:55:28 AM, jimtimmy8 wrote:We need open borders. If you dare notice the crime, lower wages, and cultural decay that accompany open borders, you are a racist.

Don't you care about corporations getting cheap labor? What will rich people do if they have to pay their nannies a decent wage? What about the drug dealers from Mexico that just want a better life here?

Don't you care about all that! Have you no heart whatsoever!? : :

What about NAFTA? Wouldn't a "U.S./Mexico Wall" end it?

That is what the door is for. Free LEGAL trade. Just because I support free trade doesn't mean I am going to leave my house wide open for a door to door salesman to come in and interrupt my TV watching. It shouldn't be politically incorrect to protect yourself.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

I suppose something to wonder about is how the current "natives" came to inhabit this country we call the United States. The colonists that came here, "univited", quite frankly "invaded" the land here. It seems they get a free pass in regards to the morality of a "open border". Duly noted, they are all dead, and no one alive really bears their burden of guilt, but seeing as the modern inhabitants are the products of their guilt, we have to wonder, if these people seeking to escape poverty and oppression (to instead don the shackles of the US) really should be turned away with such disdain. Granted once more, times have changed, and no one alive is responsible for any past crimes, but it is still something worth considering, if we view the nation and its history as a collective entity.

At 8/27/2015 5:29:52 AM, treeless wrote:I suppose something to wonder about is how the current "natives" came to inhabit this country we call the United States. The colonists that came here, "univited", quite frankly "invaded" the land here. It seems they get a free pass in regards to the morality of a "open border". Duly noted, they are all dead, and no one alive really bears their burden of guilt, but seeing as the modern inhabitants are the products of their guilt, we have to wonder, if these people seeking to escape poverty and oppression (to instead don the shackles of the US) really should be turned away with such disdain. Granted once more, times have changed, and no one alive is responsible for any past crimes, but it is still something worth considering, if we view the nation and its history as a collective entity.

Yes, we learned from the Indians why walls are important.

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

At 8/27/2015 5:29:52 AM, treeless wrote:I suppose something to wonder about is how the current "natives" came to inhabit this country we call the United States. The colonists that came here, "univited", quite frankly "invaded" the land here. It seems they get a free pass in regards to the morality of a "open border". Duly noted, they are all dead, and no one alive really bears their burden of guilt, but seeing as the modern inhabitants are the products of their guilt, we have to wonder, if these people seeking to escape poverty and oppression (to instead don the shackles of the US) really should be turned away with such disdain. Granted once more, times have changed, and no one alive is responsible for any past crimes, but it is still something worth considering, if we view the nation and its history as a collective entity.

Time to bring you back to the real world. The world where stone-age Europeans have been found to have inhabited North America over 10,000 years prior to the Native Americans arriving.

That's interesting. Perhaps you should call yourself a African-American, since from a historical point of view, the first humans are supposedly from Africa.

Again, not true. Recent genetic testing suggests that homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals and then Denisovans of Southeastern Asia.

Now, since species are self-contained groups and are not able to interbreed with other species, unless very closely related such as close primates, scientists are reevaluating the Africa theory, adding in the newly discovered genes, and finding that homo sapiens evolved all over the planet, and through migration patterns, came in contact with each other, breading between the groups.

That's interesting. Perhaps you should call yourself a African-American, since from a historical point of view, the first humans are supposedly from Africa.

Again, not true. Recent genetic testing suggests that homo sapiens bred with Neanderthals and then Denisovans of Southeastern Asia.

Now, since species are self-contained groups and are not able to interbreed with other species, unless very closely related such as close primates, scientists are reevaluating the Africa theory, adding in the newly discovered genes, and finding that homo sapiens evolved all over the planet, and through migration patterns, came in contact with each other, breading between the groups.

Make science your b!tch.

Yes, I know of these new theories. I was merely trying to humor your point about who are the real "natives" of the Americas. I am supposing your point is that humans beings are migrants with various origins. But why is this relevant? The emphasis of my original post wasn't about who the real "natives" were, but how a certain group of invaders nearly eradicated the inhabitants through conquest and general violence.

Yes, I know of these new theories. I was merely trying to humor your point about who are the real "natives" of the Americas. I am supposing your point is that humans beings are migrants with various origins. But why is this relevant? The emphasis of my original post wasn't about who the real "natives" were, but how a certain group of invaders nearly eradicated the inhabitants through conquest and general violence.

Your original point, yes; the evolution of the discussion however, has taken us, somehow, into the history of migration in North America.

By the way, IMHO, it shows a complete lack of American pride to refer to oneself as "African-American". Unless you were born in Africa and migrated to America, you are NOT African-American....instead, you are American. Tell you this much, if I were a black American, I would feel a bit upset having check boxes I had to fill in separating me as half African, half American; although I am born and bred American....just my humble opinion though.

Clearly we haven't learned all that much if our walls are still failing.

Sure we have. we know a wall is important, and like GI Joe, knowing is half the battle!

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

Yes, I know of these new theories. I was merely trying to humor your point about who are the real "natives" of the Americas. I am supposing your point is that humans beings are migrants with various origins. But why is this relevant? The emphasis of my original post wasn't about who the real "natives" were, but how a certain group of invaders nearly eradicated the inhabitants through conquest and general violence.

Your original point, yes; the evolution of the discussion however, has taken us, somehow, into the history of migration in North America.

The emphasis was shifted by your posting of the article that had little to do with my original point.

By the way, IMHO, it shows a complete lack of American pride to refer to oneself as "African-American". Unless you were born in Africa and migrated to America, you are NOT African-American....instead, you are American. Tell you this much, if I were a black American, I would feel a bit upset having check boxes I had to fill in separating me as half African, half American; although I am born and bred American....just my humble opinion though.

I wasn't saying black people should qualify themselves as African-American no more than Europeans should call themselves European-American, etc. My point was that if we were considering the history of origin, everyone would have a "-" in their nationality, as we were historically nomads.

At 8/27/2015 7:28:59 AM, treeless wrote:Yes, we learned from the Indians why walls are important.

Clearly we haven't learned all that much if our walls are still failing.

Sure we have. we know a wall is important, and like GI Joe, knowing is half the battle!

WWCPD? => What Would Captain Planet Do?

Build a translucent dome around the earth.... and make Mexico pay for it.

Of course!

I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.

Your original point, yes; the evolution of the discussion however, has taken us, somehow, into the history of migration in North America.

The emphasis was shifted by your posting of the article that had little to do with my original point.

Even before I started posting, the discussion was evolving

I wasn't saying black people should qualify themselves as African-American no more than Europeans should call themselves European-American, etc. My point was that if we were considering the history of origin, everyone would have a "-" in their nationality, as we were historically nomads.

That was simply a side thought I had when reading "African-American" previously....wasn't really something to respond to. I wasn't attacking you or anything there friend :)

Build a translucent dome around the earth.... and make Mexico pay for it.

Of course!

LOL nice one. But really, he would beat up all of those coyotes, tie them up, hang them off the flagpole in front of the local jailhouse, then fly up into the air randomly and somehow come down in front of congress and the president, hovering a few feet off the ground. Then he would give a speech about how "You may think letting all these immigrants into America is a nice thing, but their travels are destroying the Earth with litter, piss, sh!t, bundles of heroine, cocaine, and dead bodies. This is bad for the future of the planet and our children." Then out of nowhere comes a stealth fighter jet, an A-10 Warthog, and a full battalion of AH-64 Longbow attack choppers, unleashing on Captain Planet for violating protected airspace.

Then Obama points at him laying on the ground and says "That'll teach you for saying something to me that makes perfect sense."

At the same time, Joe Biden slowly sneaks up to Captain Planet's lifeless body. He looks around to make sure nobody is watching, then starts to massage Captain Planet's shoulders, whispering into his ear.

Really? All I saw was something about free trade and arguments of self-interest.

Actually, the digression began with you:

"I suppose something to wonder about is how the current "natives" came to inhabit this country we call the United States. The colonists that came here, "univited", quite frankly "invaded" the land here. It seems they get a free pass in regards to the morality of a "open border". Duly noted, they are all dead, and no one alive really bears their burden of guilt, but seeing as the modern inhabitants are the products of their guilt, we have to wonder, if these people seeking to escape poverty and oppression (to instead don the shackles of the US) really should be turned away with such disdain. Granted once more, times have changed, and no one alive is responsible for any past crimes, but it is still something worth considering, if we view the nation and its history as a collective entity."

I just wanted to clarify in case there was a misunderstanding. Moreover, aside from our digression, I have yet to see your stance on the matter.